Goodbye everybody, I've got to go (F65)

Anybody else think the F 3 / 5 / 55 / 65 pretty well look the same for the most part? That F35... just looks like it was born to make movies.
 
hi Nate

Thanks for that. I assume that shooting SR with S-Log gives me the same dynamic range as the F35 has and that has very rarely been a problem. As confucious say "Man who not know what to do with 12 stop, no need 14"

Both my PC and my laptop at home have meaty graphics cards, I tried playing back some RAW footage but it choked. I think probably because of the data rate rather than the image processing. Not a massive issue for me though, as I don't deal with post much as a DoP.

Also L1n3ARX they are pretty different. I used an F3 again the other day after a long break and I couldn't believe how bad the rolling shutter was, if nothing else.
 
L1N3ARX said:
Anybody else think the F 3 / 5 / 55 / 65 pretty well look the same for the most part? That F35... just looks like it was born to make movies.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this comment is earnestly meant, but the sheer broadness of it encourages the sort of criticism for "fanboyism" that is frequently lobbied at the fine energetic folks over at reduser.net. In short, I don't think it's ultimately constructive to the cause here, however well intended it is.

While I haven't personally shot the F5/F55/F65, I have seen Oblivion and Evil Dead, both shot on the F65, in theaters, and they both blew what my F3 can do away, as they certainly should.

There has been some discussion of how the F5 and F55, (perhaps particularly with prior firmware versions) take a good deal of wrangling in post to find the look, but the general consensus seems to be that for experienced colorists it's there to find.

For reasons like these I don't broad generalizing comments are necessarily helpful, except perhaps in reassuring us that we made the right decision with our money.

The F35 is beautiful, both on small screens and huge ones. It also costs $12,500 or less. And it has a global shutter. With that pricepoint, it really doesn't need to be *better* than the F5, F55, F65. Just competive in looks and price.
 
F3 =/= F35

The F5, F55 and F65 are not really comparable products if for no other reason than they never really sat in Sony's catalogue at the same time.

the F5 is best seen as an F3 replacement. The F65 is obviously an F35 replacement. The F55 is muddying the waters a little bit I suppose and I guess is going for the new territory for cameras like the AMIRA.

In terms of how the cameras are marketed, the F23, F35 and F65 are all part of the same series - evolutionary steps, if you will. I'd also give the Genesis honourable mention as the one that "kicked it off".

I don't think it is unreasonable to discuss those here. The F5 and to a great extent the F55 are aimed at a very different market to the F35 user.
 
I suppose I was just commenting on image aesthetics alone and not all the major feature upgrades. I do think cameras like the F55 / 65 are quite a bit superior to the older cams in many, many ways.
 
The F5 and F55 are fairly different from each other, certainly if Sony's specs are to be believed. It is impossible to tell a lot of these things from web sources though
 
I was reading about the F65 today (out of jealousy haha) and a lot of people were saying it's lighter than the F35. I'm assuming they mean without the tape deck attached? Or just the body too. I'd assume with the mech shutter it would become heavier!

Either way this is super cool. I can't wait to see anything you film with it.
 
Congrats James. Im sure the F65 will fit right in with your needs. You will love it.


Just some advise, Ive shot 2 music videos with the 65, and it is the most detailed/sharpest image I have ever seen, and I suggest steering away from very sharp lenses (ala Arri Ultra primes etc).
It really needs either softer lenses/diffuse filters, or nets IMO.

Workflow was easy peesy. Set sony raw viewer to make prores proxies over night (much easier and quicker than using resolve) and edit with the proxies. When happy with the edit, sent xml to resolve, reconnect the RAW, grading paradise, export back to NLE, happiness.

Also IMO, the F65 is NOT lighter than a F35 (without the SRW Toaster)
 
Yes, Sony's claims of the F65 being "lighter and less power-hungry" than the F35 only really apply if you compare it to the F35 with the tape deck attached. The F65 body is heavier and hungrier than the F35, although the overall package is quite neat.

I have spent all day today at Sony's "Digital Motion Picture Centre Europe", playing with the F5/55/65

Mac, here are a couple of files (not mine) http://media.xiph.org/mango/raw/
 
I agree with Mac - the F65 should get some compressed codec offerings. Based on what you said, you can use it with like the odyssey 7q for 10 bit or 12 bit 444 output?
 
F65 Codec Options are as follows:

Sony "F65 RAW SQ" = 8192 x 2160 "8K" 16-bit linear RAW @ 3.6:1 Compression = 2250mbps
Sony "F65 RAW LITE" = Same @ 6:1 compression or thereabouts = 1350mbps

Sony SR Codec = 1920x1080 sampled from the original "8K" image to a 4:4:4 12-bit file, as with the SR-R1, choice of 880mbps, 440mbps or 220mbps.
 
JMtheDP said:
Sony SR Codec = 1920x1080 sampled from the original "8K" image to a 4:4:4 12-bit file, as with the SR-R1, choice of 880mbps, 440mbps or 220mbps.
Click to expand...

I think the phrasing here is slightly misleading and inaccurate. If it's the same as the SR-R1, it likely is as follows:

Sony SR Codec = 1920x1080 sampled from the original "8k" image. Several compression flavors of the SR Codec are possible.
These include:
10 bit 422 SR Lite at 220Mbps
10 bit 422 SR SQ at 440Mbps
10 bit 444 SR HQ at 440Mbps
12 bit 444 SR HQ at 880Mbps

The 1080 option is only available to about 60fps I beleive. Slower cheaper media can be used for the 1080p settings than for 4k.
 
Viddo

I think you may well be correct on that. It is most likely the same as the SR-R1.

1080P is only to 60fps, you are right.

With RAW, you can shoot the full 8K picture up to 60fps, using the mechanical shutter. From 60 - 120fps, the camera is line skipping vertically down to 4096 x 2160 res but deploys a special OLPF automatically to avoid more issues. Quite trick.
 
I think F65 should be added to the F3/F5/F55 section, the F65 has more in common with the F55 than the F35. CFA, global shutter, 1300% dynamic range, slog2/3, wicked LUTs...

James, come over to the other side. :)
 
Just look at the shape of the thing. It's clearly an evolution of the F23/F35.

You can't all have me :) But I do need to work out where to live, seems the F65 has no official home on here yet
 
JMtheDP said:
Just look at the shape of the thing. It's clearly an evolution of the F23/F35.

You can't all have me :) But I do need to work out where to live, seems the F65 has no official home on here yet
Click to expand...

Well best of luck with it, I'm sure you will love it and look forward to your posts on it - where ever they live. :beer:
 
starcentral said:
No need to be rude.

I didn't realize F35 had GS, but it makes sense given its a CCD. I'd actually call the F65 with a mechanical shutter "true" GS by the way.
Click to expand...

Starcentral,

I tend to find you knowledgable and to have valuable comments. If anything, I was quite surprised that you seemed unaware that the F35 has a global shutter, seeing as that has been a frequent topic of discussion on this board.

As far as a mechanical shutter being "true" - that could be a complicated conversation, for a variety of reasons.

First of all, the sensor the behind the F65 is not global shutter by itself, and the mechanical global shutter is only available under some shooting conditions. To use the F65 mechanical shutter, setting must be:
*Shutter speed between 11.2 to 180 degrees. (Higher or lower shutter speeds are electronic shutter only)
*Shooting a frame rate of 60p or lower (HFR 120p only available with electronic shutter).

Further, a traditional mechanical rotary shutter (film or digital) is actually not the same as an electronic global shutter, and is subject to more motion skew or blur, although it won't have the same jello look of the modern CMOS chips. The reason for this is a rotary shutter usually spins a full rotation once per frame. This means that one side of the frame (top,bottom, left, right, depending on how everything is positioned) is opened to the light first, and the reverse side last, and the side that saw light first goes dark first. It is, in truth, a rolling shutter, albiet far more graceful than the digital ones.

By contrast, a CCD imager like the F35 is able to send electronic signals to all photosites to start and stop light collection virtually instanteously, with essentially no spatial delay. Modern CMOS sensors like the one in the F55 do essentially the same thing.


But really, I don't mind people comparing cameras and promoting their preference, but I'd appreciate it if the claims were accurate, and didn't mislead other forum visitors by nature of being inaccurate but presented as truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top